Don't mean to stir up the Gibbons hornets nest, but per MLive, a former student is suing U-M for disciplinary actions taken after an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against him. A .pdf of the complaint is attached in the article and sheds some light on what the OSCR process looks like at UM. Plaintiff's counsel basically argues that the whole process is a mess, the OSCR isn't even close to being equipped with the resources or training to take on matters of this nature, and the result is 1st/14th Amendment Constitutional violations by the University.

I simply cannot buy into most university forums being able to conduct a sexual assault investigation and reach a conclusion separate and apart from what was reached in a court of law. If the matter were referred to authorities and they believe for a variety of reasons that they can't make a case, they typically won't prosecute. What puts a university in a better position to assess the landscape?

There is way too much on the line for the accused should an adverse decision go against him. As for the argument of anonymity, good luck when a potential employer asks you why you were dismissed from your university, when the school based their decision on a "he said, she said" position or "a woman scorned" and a standard of evidence reserved for civil matters.

Plagiarism, while a serious academic offense, is not a felony, is often easier to prove, does not have the same level of trauma for the victim, and does not carry the same stigma for the perpetrator. Other than that they are exactly the same.

Brendan Gibbons is not on a sex offender list and he is not going to prison. He is not required to register with local police each time he moves, or changes jobs, or changes his e-mail address or internet screen name or twitter. He doesn't need to notify authorities every time he plans to cross state lines. It won't be a felony offense if he's found within 100 feet of a playground or gym or athletic field. (I don't know Michigan law, but those are typical restrictions on a registered sex offender.)

Damage was done to him by the leak of his identity, but let's not exaggerate.

And you missed my point completely. Even though the punishment is similar, that's probably the least relevant factor in whether universities can fairly adjudicate sexual assault.

Besides, I'd be equally annoyed if someone was summarily expelled for plagiarism with similar lack of opportunity to mount a credible defense.

Expulsion is a major expense and life disruption. It will often prevent you from getting into other schools. And since public schools are state actors (and all schools are beholden to Title IX, among other things) there are some important rights that should be preserved.

I think to some extent the University has to be able to do things like this.

There are plenty of legal cases where evidence is lost or mishandled and gathered in an illegal way and someone who is obviously guilty walks or isn't even charged. This at least gives the University a way to protect its campus and student from these types of people.

The issue is that the University needs to understand the power its using here and equipped the responsible team to investigate and provide due process.

Yeah, I gotta agree with this to a good extent. It would be one thing if the members of these committees had extra legal training and the proceedings followed acceptable legal standards, but it sounds like it is mostly piecemeal investigations with limited oversight.

I know people complain about the legal system in this country being broken, and in ways it is, but there are laws in place that have been refined and cultivated over hundreds of years to best protect the rights and interests of all involved parties. In matters where we have clearl legal precedent (such as sexual assault), it is dangerous to deviate from those norms.

the plaintiff's counsel's criticism of the process sounds reasonable and could be completely accurate, yet her client may still have committed rape. The all-thumbs panache with which the university has handled these cases makes me feel better for protesting The Code back in 1995. Thanks a bunch, Maureen Hartford.

I once heard Amy Poehler (I think) say that almost every woman she knew had been at least "kinda" raped. I mentioned this to my sister and she agreed....but if rape means the female in the encounter wishes she hadn't had sex it really sucks for the guy. I completely agree that No means No. That said, it isn't fair to have a couple drinks, engage in activity one may or may not want to engage in, then go for legal proceedings when consequences or regret hits....

Important distinction: the woman in this case did not "go for legal proceedings", she went to the university, whose process is not a legal process.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, appeals courts in other states have upheld the right of universities to establish and enforce codes of conduct outside of the legal system. I don't see this going anywhere.

still, she went to an authority to seek some sort of exoneration for herself or justice for her attacker. And she got it. There is likely a ton more to this story than we're reading and surely 2 kids who really regret a very stupid night.

1) It may not be a "legal" proceeding in the sense that a court makes a determination of innocence or guilt, but it is most definitely legal in the sense that certain constitutional rights (read: legal rights) of the accused are at risk.

2) The question here isn't whether states/universities have a right to establish and enforce codes outside of the legal system. The question is whether the University even remotely followed those codes.

There is, or ought to be, a distinction between "intoxicated" and "mentally incapacitated". Either that or there should be a lot more cases where both parties are expelled for rape. Or at the very least the genders of the plaintiffs should be more even.

That's the problem with your "period" - it's not really enforced that way, and realistically never will be. Even your comment assumes that only males need to know that a drunk person can't consent.

...that the law in Michigan doesn't concern itself with consent. It's not illegal to have sex with a woman who was unable to give consent because she was intoxicated, unless the intoxication was involuntary. Slip something in her drink, it's an assault. If she gets drunk on her own, it's not. (In Michigan, that is. Other states differ.)

That's one of the critical differences between the university's code of conduct and state law. The university is trying to discourage conduct that is not illegal and they are within their rights to do so.

Correction: it was Amy Schumer, no Poehler, who said every woman had been a little raped. If you google her name and "rape" you can see the full context of the comment. I'm glad you brought it up, because her view is much more nuanced and realistic than the polarizing, black-and-white words we see in the media and on this here message board on the subject.

She could possibly a credible source about rape if she didn't commically retell the story her, by any definition put forth by femminists or the OCSR at UMich, raping a guy in college to the applause of a "femminist" crowd.

If the article is true then this is a case of "guilty until proven innocent". 20 years ago I was accused of sexual harrassment by a female emloyee and had to spend a LOT of money to defend myself and the attitude within my company was "of course you're guilty. Why else would she make such an accusation unless you're guilty". I lost what I thought were some friends and It damned near ruined my career and my marrage and I did nothing to this person.

Very long (and painful) story but right before it was set to go to trial she made a settlement offer to me which I rejected. At which point she dropped everything and disapeared from the company. I dont know if "all females have been a little bit raped" or not because I'm not a female but I can tell you there is an overwhelming presumption of guilt leveled against males once charges like this are filed. And not just in AA.

It's an extraordinarily difficult reality. Statistics and anecdotes (I've had a good number of female friends over the years) tell me that girls and women are abused, raped, or harassed far more often than they make false reports. However, a story like yours scares me, and I can very much understand the desire of a person accused of something like that to be treated as an individual rather than a part of a greater trend.* Yet we as a society don't seem to be doing a good job of dealing with that trend. I don't have many answers.

*My father was sued on a similarly crap race discrimination claim when I was a teenager - this despite the fact that he probably violated equal protection laws on a regular basis by favoring racial minorities over whites while hiring.

Of course, unreported assualts being more common than false accusations is a product of the difficulty of getting a case through the current legal system. It's a tough, painful process, and only an extremely motivated plaintiff (either a real victim or a real sociopath) will go through that. But if you make it easier to file a report and get someone punished, and if you codify the assumption that no one makes false accusations, more people will probably make false accusations - the risk reward calculus changes. Many have made the argument "it's fine to remove due process, because so few women make false charges", but that fallaciously assumes that the existing due process isn't part of the reason that so few false charges are filed.

I think is a feeling of having been coerced into sex. Not via a voilent attack or even a forced date rape. Just a situation where the woman doesn't want to have sex and winds up feeling helpless against it. If this thread's story is mostly true, we see a situation where if the woman is willing to make some noise or get nasty she can almost assuredly avoid intercourse. That said there is no telling what actually happened in that bunk.

Which is a fine concept and something that ought to be encouraged. But when you start handing out expulsions, I think there needs to be some reasonable mens rea on the part of the perpetrator.

I think we have a culture that encourages bad sex that people often regret and/or makes people feel that there's something wrong with them if they want to say no. But I think education is the solution, not legal action against people who honestly thought they were just taking yes for an answer.

The article was based upon the complaint filed in court and an interview with the plaintiff's attorney. UM refused to comment in any meaningful way. The author has no obligation to make up a defense for UM.

Sounds like prisons need a Prisoner Code of Conduct so that they punish prisoners internally (in addition to whatever legal penalties might be involved). Ok...I'm not making sense anymore & will shut up.

There's definitely a disconnect. Male on female rape is a serious crime, something that most people are rightly horrified by. Male on male rape in prison is a punchline, or worse, considered a justified punishment.

"Male on male rape in prison is a punchline, or worse, considered a justified punishment."

I'm assuming that you're like 2 m tall with 25 cm penis and have never had to bend over for a job promotion. There's really no joking about male-on-male rape. Or maybe you're just so ugly nobody's ever wanted to fuck your lame ass.

at UM or other colleges to better educate (warn) them about the risks of sexual misconduct, sexual assault situations, legal risks (criminal/civil) and university policy-related?

Somehow I doubt it.

Meanwhile, these investigations are poorly run, evidence-poor, and the punishments are decisive and harsh.

Maybe more could be done to raise awareness with incoming male students about this, since they are the object of the accusations in the majority of cases, and since the consequences are obviously devastating.

Gibbons lost a lot here. Expelled and branded for life. There are some huge lessons to be gained from his (and her) impaired judgement.

There was a required course to live in the dorms which is more or less required of freshman at umich.

I had to miss my male hall's course due to class so I got thrown into an all girls one, it was not a good/useful/informative session for men at all. However, many I have spoken to have said good things about their own course so it might have been just mine.

Damned if they do and if they don't. Rape is really hard to prove in a court because the nature of the crime is there's only one witness, and there's always a plausible explanation for the defense, and many victims don't want to come forward. So lots of rapes go unpunished, which is awful.

So under the White House's "I'm doing something really" instructions the schools are going around on limited evidence and picking off possible sexual assaulters, which absolutely means they will round up innocents as well as criminals who got away with it, and both will have the same case to make about the injustice.

Every way this works out is awful. I don't know what else to do. They've gone after fraternities and homeowners before, but in the case of the former they nail the national organization and the fraternity recharters as somehing else, and in the case of rental properties what good is it to charge rental property owners for undermanaged college housing?

I get thinking that this is just window dressing to look good but it has become clear over the last few years that colleges have a real issue with how they handle cases of sexual assualt. Students from across the country including schools like Amherst, and UNC have been sued by female students for the process they endured. It usually involves blaming the victim, pressuring not to move forward with a complaint and the person who comes forward has been punished more frequently than the accused.

Even as these suits have begun many women have come forward echoing that this is how they were treated when they came forward and many left school. Rape is a tough issue and the way it is being handled right now by a majority of academic institutions is most certainly not the right way

Because as flawed as the actual legal system is, the university's administrative process doesn't have the power to prove much of anything. Lesser punishments but also a lower standard for establishing "guilt."

Here's another article that popped up on my Twitter feed just today, relating a similar story about a sexual assualt investigation at Northeastern (apologies for the source): LINK

It's clearly a problem, both the assualts and universities subsequent handling (or mishandling) of cases that are reported to them. Hopefully all the press and attention it's getting these days is the impetus for some good changes in university procedures and especially campus culture.

One of the few things I can think of is that the culture of being a guy - and I use that specific word purposefully - in the US needs to change. The idea that you should try to get a girl drunk so you can take advantage of her should be attacked (I've seen an ad doing this). The idea that boys will be boys needs to change to the extent that it excuses bad behavior toward women. Part of getting to wear the mantle "man" should be that you're not a shit to women.

Of course, the assumptions that only men want sex, only men initiate sex, only men lie about sex, and only men use force, coercion, or chemically-impaired judgement to obtain sex should also be changed - and all of these assumptions appear to underlie the proceedings currently being used by OSCR and its counterparts at other universities (not to mention apparent assumption that sexual assault only occurs in heterosexual relations).

As one of the few, sometimes it's tough to be a poster on this site. Due respect here - I get the "stays in Vegas" man talk and it certainly isn't exclusive to this site. In fact, I feel like there are a good number of men here who try to keep it clean. Sports, and especially sports talk, is a man's world. We women who try to walk in that world have had to accept the Kate Upton posts ad nauseum.

I was once told by a poster I respect, when the subject was sexual assault and alcohol, that guys talk about "doing drunk chicks" all the time and it was something I just didn't understand. So I left that conversation, realizing I was vastly outnumbered. It would have caused me too much grief, and I know I'm not changing anyone's mind.

Weirdly, not all women could exist here, on a site like this. I've walked the line both here and professionally, working on an ad account that was a man's domain for years, and just turned it off when it got to be too much. Talking about rape is something I can't do here, because it's way too contentious, so I generally don't.

I try to keep myself from getting too preachy on here, but sometimes the culture and tone this board takes towards women and issues like rape can be really frustrating and upsetting. I definitely have caught myself in the past getting sucked into arguments about this stuff and probably should try to maintain a little more even tone.

But in this particular thread, pretty much every thought I've had has already been voiced by Erik_in_Dayton. So good on you, Erik!

Any blog like this allows some people to say things they would not say to someone's face. That makes them an idiot. It gives some the false courage to rant using the foulest of language and total disregard for victims feelings and even finding guilt without facts is more than I can take at times and I'm a retired State Trooper who has seen and heard it all in over 25 years on the force. I pick and choose my arguments on here. So don't feel alone. As an older gentleman I say you are welcome. Hope to see some of your posts.

I love this site. I don't always agree with everything posted (although I do think Kate Upton is hot) but I have never felt any disrespect to me personally. I also choose not to wade into muddy water in most instances. When topics like rape come up, I use it as an opportunity to learn what views are out there and leave it at that. That's kind of my approach to the Internet in general.

I agree with whoever posted that the University is not equipped to 'try' cases like this that the police or DA do not. I also firmly believe that the best thing we can do, starting early, is educate kids about alcohol, consent and the difference between sex and rape. There is a lot of gray area and the more we can teach HS and college kids so they can be smarter and make better decisions, the better.

I'm a female but recognize this issue is complicated. My own views are complicated by the fact that I am a mother of a teenage son. Also the fact that I work for the University. And that when I was a student here, I served on OSCR for a year.

I have my own history of drunken stupidity & sexual idiocy to reflect on too.

I have a friend who was a victim of inebriated date rape and the way she describes the aftermath is really terrible. How she felt, how her university treated her, how her family reacted. It's been over a decade and she still carries this around with her. But here's the kicker: How she describes the start of that encounter? It sounds really similar to situations I was in, in college. More than once, even: Two drunk people, horny guy, semi-reluctant girl who eventually gives in (ie. gives consent at the time, after some pleading) and regrets it later. But these things had very different outcomes in terms of emotions and consequences.

So what baffles and concerns me (as an employee of an institution which houses young men and young women, all of whom are deserving of protection, and as the mother of a son who is a few years from college and intimate relationships himself) is that the facts of an encounter can be undisputed, but the ultimate criminality of them seems to hinge on something you cannot see, predict, or control. And that's how a woman reacts to a sexual encounter she is ambivalent about, and that she regrets afterwards. What determines whether a woman feels destroyed and violated, taken advantage of, illegally coerced? What determines whether a woman says "That was stupid on my part?" Which ones will suffer long-term emotionally, and which ones won't? Which ones are going to ask the University (or law) to intervene, and thus possibly change forever the lives of their sexual partner? What determines the outcome in these particular kinds of hook-ups? I don't know. Sometimes it feels like the only answer is don't drink, and don't hook up. Not so realistic.

ETA: I'm not referring to the case UM is being sued for; I'm talking about experiences I have had, as described.

I don't like the university role outlined by Title IX. Sexual assault is a crime. Universities don't have effective tools or experience to investigate them. Schools should be actively referring these cases to law enforcement rather than handling them internally.

And while the focus here is on the rights of the accused, I think the process is equally fraught for the victims - how are college professors and administrators qualified to speak with or advocate for victims on these issues? There's a general understanding that the process of perusing a sexual assault case can be traumatizing for the victim - but apparently we're okay with totally untrained campus councils hearing victims talk about their rape?

I think Erik has it exactly right men need to be raised that its not ok to get girls drunk and sleep with them. One dumb hook up decision can wreck their future and there are women out there who have no problem lying because she may not want to be branded as a slut and would rather be a "victim" . I would just add that its hard when you add alcohol especially from the girls perspective we are a thousand times more vunerable.I know a girl who had a boyfriend and questioned the next day to herself if she really agreed to cheat on him.I know another girl from highschool who was clearly passed out and was raped by an adult and had to be told the next day that she was violated. I think there is a lot of truth that most girls have been kind of raped. Sitting and talking with girlfriends many have been in situations that they should not have been in. I teach my girls that they must take care of themselves first and to not depend on others to watch over them. I learned that lesson when I was young from my highschool friend. She expected people to look out for her but sometimes in that kind of situation people get scared and don't know what to do.

Except that in many of these cases the issue isn't one of wanting to kiss the guy, its kissing the guy and then being unable to stop him from having sex with her. Being drunk and kissing a person is not a compromising situation to avoid and if it moves to sex against her wishes it is rape. The issue isn't waking up and thinking that was a bad idea, its waking up, realizing you said no and that it happened anyway, there doesn't have to be a physical fight for rape to occur and alchohol isn't absolving anyone.

As a father of daughters, I agree with most of your post. I especially agree with teaching girls the importance of making good decisions and staying away from bad situations.

However, the phrase "kind of raped" is just horrible. Rape is a serious criminal act. Rapists should go to prison for very long periods of time. You cannot be "kind of raped," any more than one can be "kind of guilty" of rape. Put another way, someone who is kind of guilty would also be kind of innocent. You simply cannot be both.

From your post, and without knowing anything but what you said, it seems like the first friend you mentioned did, in fact, cheat on her boyfriend. This may have been a poor or even implusive choice. It does not appear (based on your post alone) to have been rape. The second friend was (again only from the facts in your post) raped and I truly hope the man who did that to her is still in prison somewhere.

This may appear to be semantics, but some words do have real meaning which needs to be preserved. Words like "rape" and "sexual assault" have real meanings - and they need to. Decribing regretable or poor decisions as being "kind of raped" perpetuates not only a victimization culture, but diminishes the seriousness of the actual crime of rape. Someone who makes a bad decision and cheats on someone needs to accept they made a mistake, not claim to have been "kind of raped." Someone who is violated while passed out should be encouraged go to the police.

The FanMan I agree the first friend was definately not raped and just made a poor choice in who she slept with. If she had been a bad person she could have caused trouble for the guy she had slept with. When a girl says she was raped I think most people tend to believe the girl. A lot of women never come forward like my second friend because they fear the individual and most of all the process that is supposed to bring about justice. I don't think she felt like there could ever be justice for the aftermath of what she experienced.

So if a guy is drunk and has consensual sex with a girl he was raped by definition of the law? I wish it was just rape if the girl says no or was forcefully given alcohol. If a girl says yes and has sex with a guy while drunk then later claims he's raped her, it doesn't seem right. You can't being drunk as an excuse for a DUI so why is this any different.

GoBLUinTX I agree with you. I do believe that women are more vulnerable to rape in college but most girls don't understand or care that they put themselves in vulnerable situations by their actions. I am raising my daughters to understand that they need to take personal responsibility for themselves and drink responsibly and not depend on others to look out for them if they are passing out that is what I am saying. Obviously it is horrific for men to be falsely accused when the hookup was consensual. Women who falsely accuse of rape should be punished legally. I am not anti guy here I simply worry about my girls as they grow and that's my focus.

Knowing the details if the case, I can safely assume the student was wronged by the university. There was a good article in the WSJ recently about university misconduct and disregard for defendant rights in such cases. There is also a good article in the National Review on thus subject today. There is a war on men on college campuses and the Obama administration is leading this war while ginning up hysteria about a rape epidemic on college campuses. Hopefully he wins the case but I'm not hopeful because men are treated as second-class citizens even in the courts.

I'm not sure how you this becomes a left-right issue. Deborah Gordon is a civil rights/employment law attorney -- I don't know her party registration but most people in that area are liberal. While the federal government is investigating certain schools' policies that doesn't mean mandating what is described in the article.

Not necessarily a left right thing, but mandated changes to the way sexual assault cases are handled by universities have been put in place by the current administration and their appointed officials. This is a statement of fact, not partisanship.

My post isn't partisan or making any left-right political statement. It is a statement of fact. The Obama administration has applied extreme pressure to force universities to aggressively investigate and punish alleged sexual assault using a low standard of evidence and certain criteria (which assume the male is the aggressor and guilty until proven innocent). And I would hope that being in favor of fairness and justice for all isn't a partisan political stance. Of course, my description of this approach as a war on men is my opinion but one that would seem reasonable to any man victimized by the current system.

If you know the details of this case then I am surprised you are so unfamiliar with the claims the plaintiff actually made. This is not about a war on men or the Obama administration. I have read the complaint and the gist of it is that UM failed to follow its own rules, namely it gave the plaintiff no notice of the alleged violation, considered no evidence (merely summaries of allegedly coercive interviews by the investigator/prosecutor/victim counselor), refused to consider affidavits and information provided by the plaintiff, refused to identify witnesses and offered no meaningful right to a hearing or appeal (among other things). There is a place for a university-based discipline process that addresses sexual misconduct issues. There must, however, be fair rules that afford the accused due process while treating accusers with respect and fairness, and without the conflicts of interest that appear glaring in this case. At the very least, universities need to follow their own rules. Finally, as a white male, the assertion that we are being victimized by a war on men (on campus or otherwise) is as irrational and immature as the ubuquitous whining about political correctness.

"Today at colleges across the country, a student accused of sexual misconduct has no right to find out the evidence against him, no right to be in the same room as his accuser, no right to a lawyer and no right to cross-examine the witnesses against him - all rights that, in a criminal proceeding, are fundamental. His case will be decided by a committee comprised variously of students, professors and administrators without oversight by impartial professionals who have criminal law experience."

The Obama administration task force is aggressivelly pushing for a low standard for guilt (preponderance of the evidence) and also encouraging universities to investigate and punish students using inadequate processes and inadequately trained personnel.

Your casual dismissal of these serious concerns and mockery of what amounts to "a war on men" is both ignorant and shameful.

While the definitions of "assault" in Michigan statutory law and "misconduct" in the University student code of conduct may overlap, they are not the same. The university--many universities in fact, but I'll stay with Michigan--does not want its students to be subjected to certain non-criminal behaviors. They cannot rely on courts of law to do that for them and it's not at all clear why oversight by people with criminal law experience would be essential, or for that matter even helpful, in non-criminal cases.

article. Best quote: "The Obama administration has issued a federal hunting license to deputize fanatics at any university in America. They will define who gets arrested, and on what basis." Partisan, yes, but truthful.